*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2018, 07:48:59 PM »
I explicitly said the same face is not facing the Earth, it rotates. This is a departure from RET.
It's because you explicitly said that that I mentioned it; because it's not what we observe. The face (or underside if you prefer) is always the same and doesn't revolve or rotate away from observation points on earth. If that's going to be different in FET, then where's the observation to support it? It's one of the things we must agree on since we're seeing the same thing, whether we think we're on a flat earth or a curved one.
It does not look the same. Look at photos, look at the moon itself, not the RE model.



The coarseness at the edge of the underside is visible for the crescent, but we see no such features on the full moon, for starters. Between the two, the only part that I think could even feasibly be called the same would be the two grey patches near the top of the crescent, though even they appear different in terms of proportion and shading, though I suppose that could be put down to the camera. Minor details like that, however, are trivial: if you imagine a lit 2-D circle with let's say a black dot on the right hand side, then you rotate the circle, you will still see that black dot, and indeed it will seem to be getting closer and closer to the left of the now-ellipse.
There are features to the right of the full moon that can no longer be seen on the crescent, features to the left and bottom of the crescent that cannot be seen on the full, precisely as we would expect on a rotating face. Details are obscured where the full might of the moon shines, and when we are given a different angle more of those details come into view, hence being able to see more and more of the imperfections the less full-on the moonlight is.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2018, 08:11:13 PM »
On the left, your crescent moon rotated counter clockwise to align with the orientation of your full moon, and then overlayed with the full moon:



It's the same face. The portion of the crescent moon in darkness is still the same face, whether it's reflected light or self-luminescence. We just can't see it (though sometimes we can):


*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2018, 08:38:56 PM »
On the left, your crescent moon rotated counter clockwise to align with the orientation of your full moon, and then overlayed with the full moon:



You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.

At best two of those lines are shared, and that's unreliable for the reasons I went into before. One is just outright not there, and two you could connect with those vague smudges but there's hardly enough detail visible to claim such a thing.

Quote
It's the same face. The portion of the crescent moon in darkness is still the same face, whether it's reflected light or self-luminescence. We just can't see it (though sometimes we can):


When has that ever been observed?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2018, 08:52:43 PM »
You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.

At best two of those lines are shared, and that's unreliable for the reasons I went into before. One is just outright not there, and two you could connect with those vague smudges but there's hardly enough detail visible to claim such a thing.
I worked with what you provided, but those are the same Mares, whether fully illuminated or all that's visible in the crescent.

You will not find a crescent moon image or take one yourself that will show a set of features that can't be aligned with the full moon.

I'm with you on the feasibility of a self-luminescent moon as an alternative to a reflective moon to resolve the geometry issues of a full moon over a flat earth. But whether flat earth or globe earth, the moon always has the same side facing earth. It doesn't rotate in that axis, and that's not just indoctrinated RET bias carried over to FET. That's what the zetetic observer sees as well.

You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2018, 08:56:46 PM »

When has that ever been observed?
[/quote]
When this photo was taken, for one. I can attest to seeing that.

In fact, now would be a good time for it, either just before sunrise or a little after sunset wherever you are. If I can, I'll grab a photo of the moon tonight after sunset and we can see if the crescent moon's unlit portion is dimly visible.  My skies are partly overcast right now, but I might have enough clearing to find the moon when this phenomenon is likely. Take a look yourself wherever you are (either tonight if the sun hasn't set yet or in the morning before sunrise if it's already nighttime where you are).

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2018, 09:13:33 PM »
I worked with what you provided, but those are the same Mares, whether fully illuminated or all that's visible in the crescent.

You will not find a crescent moon image or take one yourself that will show a set of features that can't be aligned with the full moon.
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific. Your definition of aligning them is meaningless, you are just overlaying them and using the features that only exist when you do so as evidence that they're the same. By that logic the moon could be an eyeball.


Quote
You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full.
And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done. What you're providing is a mix of confirmation bias, associating spots that would appear in either case, and circular reasoning.

Quote
When this photo was taken, for one. I can attest to seeing that.

In fact, now would be a good time for it, either just before sunrise or a little after sunset wherever you are. If I can, I'll grab a photo of the moon tonight after sunset and we can see if the crescent moon's unlit portion is dimly visible.  My skies are partly overcast right now, but I might have enough clearing to find the moon when this phenomenon is likely. Take a look yourself wherever you are (either tonight if the sun hasn't set yet or in the morning before sunrise if it's already nighttime where you are).
I can never recall seeing any such thing in all my life. It is overcast where I am too, but I do have a memory.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2018, 09:18:47 PM »
It does not look the same. Look at photos, look at the moon itself, not the RE model.
Just so I understand, are you saying that the different images are not images of the same features, and therefore not of the same places on the moon? In other words, is it a bit like seeing different images of the earth from different angles, and confusing England with Japan?

I didn't understand the bit about Kermit the Frog. Why would we confuse the moon with a frog?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2018, 09:33:46 PM »
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific.

I disagree, but okay. I think your self-luminescence theory has more plausibility if you accept that the moon keeps its same face toward the earth, but if you feel it must rotate for your theory to hold water, then good luck.

I'm willing to consider self-luminous moon but not if it requires a rotating moon (with respect to earth) because I don't see it. Call it confirmation bias if you think that's what it is.


Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2018, 09:35:10 PM »

You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.

Hahaha.  JRowe sees two picture of the same object in different conditions and can't detect the similarities.  The crescent moon picture was taken with higher resolution than the other and therefore shows more detail, but JRowe believes that the "coarseness at the edge of the underside" means that the moon shows different faces at different times.

To top it off, when a helpful person rotates the image and draws lines to make the matching feature obvious, JRowe calls foul with the typical flat-earth you used CGI on the image.  Classic!

JRowe, if you can't understand that the side of the Moon facing Earth is always the same, you're not going to generate credibility for your other viewpoints. Especially when you show us a picture of them looking the same and then claim louder that they are different.
There's nothing more dangerous than an idea, if it's the only one you have. -Émile Chartier

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2018, 10:16:40 PM »
Just so I understand, are you saying that the different images are not images of the same features, and therefore not of the same places on the moon? In other words, is it a bit like seeing different images of the earth from different angles, and confusing England with Japan?

I didn't understand the bit about Kermit the Frog. Why would we confuse the moon with a frog?
Some of the features are the same; if you draw on a circle and rotate it away, you will still see those features. This isn't like the model of a rotating Earth because it is a singular basically flat face that's visible, and rotating away, hence the change of shape. But yes, in general they're not the same locations, and they don't look it.
Kermit it just brought up because of how the images were overlaid. Whole new features were added to the crescent that were not actually visible because they existed on the full moon laid over it. By that logic you could overlay the image of a full moon on anything, like Kermit, and identify features that way.
What matters is what is actually seen.


You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.

Hahaha.  JRowe sees two picture of the same object in different conditions and can't detect the similarities.  The crescent moon picture was taken with higher resolution than the other and therefore shows more detail, but JRowe believes that the "coarseness at the edge of the underside" means that the moon shows different faces at different times.

To top it off, when a helpful person rotates the image and draws lines to make the matching feature obvious, JRowe calls foul with the typical flat-earth you used CGI on the image.  Classic!

JRowe, if you can't understand that the side of the Moon facing Earth is always the same, you're not going to generate credibility for your other viewpoints. Especially when you show us a picture of them looking the same and then claim louder that they are different.

You are more than welcome to look at other images of the crescent moon. Coarseness along the border is universally visible.
I didn't call CGI, I pointed out that he literally overlaid the full moon onto the crescent moon. He is drawing lines from an image of the full moon to an image of the full moon, why are you attaching significance to the fact that they match? What is it you imagine he did?
Instead of your typical blind REer scorn on anything that dares be different, how about an honest analysis of the situation? I note you ignore the fact that I responded to that image by again posting the original crescent to point out that the features he's drawing a line between objectively do not exist on the image of the crescent, and instead only exist on the image of the full moon that he overlaid. Yes I'm calling foul because overlaying the image of the full moon is exactly what he did. If you disagree, please correct me, how do you think he laid one image on top of the other and created whole new features that it is trivial to see did not exist in the original?
I mean for god's sake you can literally see the lines of the full moon's outline. This is hardly rocket science. He drew lines from an image of a full moon to an image of the same full moon. Why are you acting as though this is evidence?!
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2018, 10:19:36 PM »
You think they're the same because it's the model you're used to, but there are simply not enough similar features to make such a claim scientific.

I disagree, but okay. I think your self-luminescence theory has more plausibility if you accept that the moon keeps its same face toward the earth, but if you feel it must rotate for your theory to hold water, then good luck.

I'm willing to consider self-luminous moon but not if it requires a rotating moon (with respect to earth) because I don't see it. Call it confirmation bias if you think that's what it is.



That's always an issue with REers. I've noticed it constantly, the adamant belief that an observation may have only one explanation.
Add all the labels you want, those features do not look the same on a full moon, as pointed out. You get a few similarities, sure, because you are still looking at the same face, but everything about them does change. Size, shape... This is true even under your model. Take a mountain; on a full moon that'd barely be noticable, on a more crescent moon it'd have become a black triangle.
RET itself is based on the idea that it isn't going to look the same. Proceeding to claim that it does is headscratching at the very least.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2018, 10:49:44 PM »
That's always an issue with REers. I've noticed it constantly, the adamant belief that an observation may have only one explanation.
Add all the labels you want, those features do not look the same on a full moon, as pointed out. You get a few similarities, sure, because you are still looking at the same face, but everything about them does change. Size, shape... This is true even under your model. Take a mountain; on a full moon that'd barely be noticable, on a more crescent moon it'd have become a black triangle.
RET itself is based on the idea that it isn't going to look the same. Proceeding to claim that it does is headscratching at the very least.

With overlay (top)
Without overlay (bottom)



Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help. It's no skin off my back if you insist the moon isn't always presenting its same face toward earth. I wasn't even addressing self-luminescence in this topic. I'm addressing what the TFES.org wiki states.

I have no problem with you changing the tact of this topic, but I'm not going to spend time trying to persuade you that you're seeing the same face of the moon when it's gone to crescent. If that's crucial to the non-Wiki self-luminescence theory you are promoting, maybe generate a new topic on the subject? I'm going to stick with the reflective moon/same face notion.

Good luck.


Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2018, 03:34:02 AM »
I pointed out that he literally overlaid the full moon onto the crescent moon. He is drawing lines from an image of the full moon to an image of the full moon, why are you attaching significance to the fact that they match? What is it you imagine he did?

Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help.

This is what I imagined he did.  He rotated and overlayed the images to help you see the similarities.

Why are you acting as though this is evidence?!

Because it is evidence.  When you overlay the images and the features line up, it is evidence.  Now that he has shown it without the overlay, can you see it?
There's nothing more dangerous than an idea, if it's the only one you have. -Émile Chartier

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2018, 03:41:34 AM »
Here is an image of the full moon with enough resolution to include "coarseness"

There's nothing more dangerous than an idea, if it's the only one you have. -Émile Chartier

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2018, 03:28:05 PM »
With overlay (top)
Without overlay (bottom)

You do realise two of those lines are connecting to an utter lack of features on the crescent, one is connecting to a very different looking feature, and two to contorted shapes right?

Quote
Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help. It's no skin off my back if you insist the moon isn't always presenting its same face toward earth. I wasn't even addressing self-luminescence in this topic. I'm addressing what the TFES.org wiki states.

I have no problem with you changing the tact of this topic, but I'm not going to spend time trying to persuade you that you're seeing the same face of the moon when it's gone to crescent. If that's crucial to the non-Wiki self-luminescence theory you are promoting, maybe generate a new topic on the subject? I'm going to stick with the reflective moon/same face notion.

Good luck.
i didn't say it was a trick, it's an instance of circular thinking; it's the model that you're used to so it's the one you expect to see, but look at the lines you are actually drawing. You've connected a blank spot on the crescent with a feature on the full moon, and ambiguous smudges with defined shapes. You're seeing what you want to see.
The topic seems to be the claim that the full moon cannot exist on a flat Earth. it can.

Because it is evidence.  When you overlay the images and the features line up, it is evidence.  Now that he has shown it without the overlay, can you see it?
Except  for the fact that, yet again, those features don't exist. Look at the actual image aready.

Here is an image of the full moon with enough resolution to include "coarseness"


Which bears no resemblance to the speckled, coarse border i drew attention to in the crescent, what's your point? What did you think i was talking about?!
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1391
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2018, 04:33:05 PM »
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2018, 04:55:34 PM »
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?

I thought about trying that tact, but that requires a presumption that it's the sun that's illuminating the moon's surface. You and I know that features like craters will cast shadows when the sun is off to the right (as oriented in the crescent moon image) but won't when directly facing the side of the moon facing the earth (in the full moon picture.)

But JRowe see's "course" features and doesn't believe those are the same features as in the full moon image. It has to be a different part of the moon because how else would 'course' features become smoothed? They can't because the moon is emanating light itself, so that HAS to be a different location on the moon.

This would make sense for explaining moon phases on a flat earth if the sun and moon were both overhead and a spotlight sun wasn't casting any light on the moon at all. Then a self-luminous moon could explain the phases. I just think that it would have to be a dynamic luminescence that moves or sweeps across the side of the moon always facing downward toward earth rather than one portion of the moon that is luminescent with the moon revolving to reveal its lit side and then its dark side. That doesn't match with observation. At least not mine, where I can easily distinguish the same visible features of the moon regardless of its phase.

If it must be that the moon revolves such that the same side doesn't always face toward earth, the I think that kills self-luminescence in its tracks. If you can allow that the moon always keeps one side facing toward earth and that it's luminescence is cyclic by area -- however that might ultimately be explained -- the theory can survive and move on to address other challenges. But even most flat earthers will deny that the same "underside" of the moon is all we ever see from an earth vantage point. JRowe's theory can't tolerate that so he will not concede that the features we point out are, in fact, the same features on a fully illuminated moon.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2018, 05:26:02 PM »
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
1. What does that have to do with the moon?
2. Depends on the season.

Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2018, 05:38:09 PM »
JRowe's theory can't tolerate that so he will not concede that the features we point out are, in fact, the same features on a fully illuminated moon.
Because they are absolutely, unambiguously not. Let's snip away the rest of the image, let's look just at the features you pointed out as meant to be similar without worrying about your mind playing tricks because you expect them to be the same. From your image, the lines you drew. You're welcome to do the same.


How can it reasonably be concluded that these are somehow the same features? RET says they are because that is what the model wants, not because it is what is observed, and i urge you to look at the actual observations here.
The first is a completely different shape, there's nothing to even compare on the second, the third you could maybe argue for inasmuch as 'oh, something's there' but not much more, and the fourth and fifth to finish off have nothing whatsoever in common.

You have a few similarities on the large scale, yes, because features that had been on the right of the moon would seem closer to the left as it turns (see the circle and dot illustration i used earlier), but they are far too twisted and contorted to believe that you are looking at the same features from the same perspective, when they are even there at all.

When expectation is taken out of the picture, can you honestly say to me that it looks like they're the same?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1391
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2018, 05:51:13 PM »
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
1. What does that have to do with the moon?

Sunrise/sunset occurs on the terminator line on both Earth and Moon. No?


2. Depends on the season.

The time would change, but it would always be sunrise or sunset time, wouldn't it?



Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.

See above.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"